Arming the Ukrainians

[Outrider]

200,000 dead Ukrainians and counting. Same number maimed. Many more fled the country, all because they wanted to join NATO

No. Because Russia didn't want them to join NATO. Ukraine wanting to join NATO led to nothing more than enquiries about joining NATO.

Russia decided to invade. Twice. No-one MADE Russia invade, Putin chose that course of action.

O.

[jeremyp]

The Ukrainians may have thought Putin wanted them to be part of greater Russia, but if that had been the case why did Russia use only 100,000 men for the initial phase of the operation?

Russia used 200,000 men in the initial phase, but they thought it was going to be a walk over.

To take the whole of Ukraine would have required a much bigger army and also preparation by bombardment like the US did when it invaded Iraq.

The plan was to capture the seat of government, execute the leaders and put in place a puppet president. Ukraine did not want that, so they fought back.

Well, clearly Russia expected that the army they brought would be enough to press Ukraine into agreeing to its terms  (the central one of which was permanent neutrality).

Russian terms aren't worth the paper they are written on. Russia is inherently untrustworthy.

In the interview in the above link, he also implies that Boris Johnson persuaded them not to sign, saying "let's just fight". So Ukraine was clearly influenced by Johnson, and obviously would not be able to fight without NATO support, so NATO is partly responsible for the catastrophic loss of life.

Oh FFS. Russia is entirely responsible for the loss of life. All they had to do was not invade, or once it became clear they were not going to achieve their objectives, withdraw and do a peace deal.

[Outrider]

The Ukrainians may have thought Putin wanted them to be part of greater Russia, but if that had been the case why did Russia use only 100,000 men for the initial phase of the operation?

Because he's strategically and tactically inept, and failed to understand that Ukrainian people have western mentality of fighting against oppression? Because although Putin has a long-term goal of taking over Ukraine he has a short-term objective of creating a land bridge to the territory he's already stolen?

To take the whole of Ukraine would have required a much bigger army and also preparation by bombardment like the US did when it invaded Iraq.

No. The US (and allies) bombarded Iraq specifically because they had no intention of occupying or running the country they were intent only on reducing Iraq's military and civilian capacity to resist. Of course, the difference isn't the intent, it's the technical capability differences. The US could conduct an effective, targetted bombing campaign, whereas it's become blindingly obvious that the Russians couldn't hit the side of a barn from inside the barn.
 

Well, clearly Russia expected that the army they brought would be enough to press Ukraine into agreeing to its terms  (the central one of which was permanent neutrality).

Putin didn't realistically expect to get a commitment to long-term 'neutrality', partly because having violated his own pledges so consistently he knows exactly how little they're worth. He intended to secure a land corridor to Crimea, to be able to strategically reinforce, bolster and upgrade with an eye to a greater occupation later.

In the interview in the above link, he also implies that Boris Johnson persuaded them not to sign, saying "let's just fight".  So Ukraine was clearly influenced by Johnson, and obviously would not be able to fight without NATO support, so NATO is partly responsible for the catastrophic loss of life.

Absolute horseshit. If people weren't supplying food other people would starve, so therefore Cadburys is responsible for world overpopulation. We can send as many munitions to Ukraine as we like, and if they don't have anyone to defend themselves against no-one gets killed. On the other hand, if we don't send them, Russia still invades, and people still die.

It's on Russia. It's on Putin. And it's on people who try to justify the unjustifiable aggressions. People like you.

O.

[Spud]

Because he's strategically and tactically inept, and failed to understand that Ukrainian people have western mentality of fighting against oppression? Because although Putin has a long-term goal of taking over Ukraine he has a short-term objective of creating a land bridge to the territory he's already stolen?

I thought his goal was for Ukraine to commit to neutrality, and treat ethnic Russians equally?
He has already (iirc) admitted his error in thinking Ukraine would agree to this.
Crimea was given to Ukraine when Ukraine was Russia's ally. He took it back when it became clear that Ukraine was hostile to Russia.

[Spud]

Absolute horseshit. If people weren't supplying food other people would starve, so therefore Cadburys is responsible for world overpopulation. We can send as many munitions to Ukraine as we like, and if they don't have anyone to defend themselves against no-one gets killed.

But it ought to have been obvious that Russia will outlast Ukraine, as they have four times as big a population. So it was irresponsible for NATO to urge Ukraine to fight

On the other hand, if we don't send them, Russia still invades, and people still die.

As many as have died since they decided to fight back? I think not.

[Outrider]

I thought his goal was for Ukraine to commit to neutrality, and treat ethnic Russians equally?

Did you? Why did you think that, because that's what he publicly said? The historically reliable Vladimir Putin said it, so it must be true? Why would he be worried about someone else treating 'ethnic Russians' (as though that were an actual thing) equally, when he treats actual Russians like shit on a industrial scale?

He has already (iirc) admitted his error in thinking Ukraine would agree to this.

I'm sure that's of great solace to the thousands of families on both sides of the BORDER THAT HE CROSSED who have lost people.

Crimea was given to Ukraine when Ukraine was Russia's ally.

No, Crimea was historically part of Ukraine, and that was recognised during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It was never Russia's to give away. Even if that's how Putin thought of it, as Russia having given it away, now that they have given it away it's no longer their's to lay claim to, it's someone else's.

He took it back when it became clear that Ukraine was hostile to Russia.

Ukraine was not 'hostile' to Russia, Ukraine feared invasion and subsumation by their aggressive, imperialist neighbour with an established history of invading other countries; a well-founded fear, as it turns out.[/quote]

But it ought to have been obvious that Russia will outlast Ukraine, as they have four times as big a population. So it was irresponsible for NATO to urge Ukraine to fight.

Ukraine was going to fight back. Russia was irresponsible to invade, and doing so moved hostile, aggressive, imperialist forces closer to NATO borders. It was part of NATO's duty to its constituent members to assist a neighbour in a way that would keep those forces further away. Ukraine was going to fight regardless, people were going to die regardless, because Putin decided that Russia had a right to Ukrainian territory (and the Ukrainian people be damned). NATO supplying weapons and training to Ukraine meant that those deaths were apportioned differently but Putin can fuck off back to Russia with his corrupt, inept forces between his legs and stop all this whenever he wants.

As many as have died since they decided to fight back? I think not.

Why is it that you think the duty is on Ukraine, NATO and the west to prevent casualties, but Putin seems to have no obligations at all? Doesn't Putin have an obligation to stop throwing his own people into the grinder - far more than the Ukrainians have lost, by all accounts, although a number of them appear to be violent offenders granted early release? Why don't you speak of Putin's obligations to his people, Putin's duty to respect international law and boundaries, Putin's duty to not increase the risk of war?

O.

[jeremyp]

I thought his goal was for Ukraine to commit to neutrality, and treat ethnic Russians equally?

Why should they commit to neutrality? And are you aware that Ukraine's president is a native Russian speaker. I think, if you can become the leader of your country, concerns about equality become moot.

He has already (iirc) admitted his error in thinking Ukraine would agree to this.
Crimea was given to Ukraine when Ukraine was Russia's ally. He took it back when it became clear that Ukraine was hostile to Russia.

Crimea became part of Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine was part of the Russian empire (not an ally, a vassal state). Its citizens, along with all the other oblasts in Ukraine voted for independence from Russia in 1991. Is that not clear enough evidence for you?

[jeremyp]

But it ought to have been obvious that Russia will outlast Ukraine

Nope. It wasn't obvious at all. After all Russia failed to outlast Afghanistan.

So it was irresponsible for NATO to urge Ukraine to fight As many as have died since they decided to fight back? I think not.

Ukraine didn't need any urging. They chose to fight even before it was obvious that NATO would support them.

[SteveH]

Nope. It wasn't obvious at all. After all Russia failed to outlast Afghanistan.

I think you'll find that Russia is still there.

[SqueakyVoice]

I think you'll find that Russia is still there.

Really,? What did the USA do between 2001 and 2021?

[Maeght]

Think Spud meant that Russia will exist longer than Ukraine rather than stay in the fight.

[Spud]

It was part of NATO's duty to its constituent members to assist a neighbour in a way that would keep those forces further away.

While in the process, getting hundreds of thousands of them killed. I'm trying hard to see how that can be right, but I can't. It seems very selfish.

[Outrider]

While in the process, getting hundreds of thousands of them killed. I'm trying hard to see how that can be right, but I can't. It seems very selfish.

Ukraine was going to fight. People were going to die. NATO's support changed the balance of who was going to die, but the only people that could have stopped it happening were Russian leadership.

You can keep suggesting that the rest of the world should just roll over for a bully if you want, but you at least need to admit that he's a bully, you can't even seem to find it within yourself to do that.

O.

[Spud]

Ukraine was going to fight. People were going to die. NATO's support changed the balance of who was going to die, but the only people that could have stopped it happening were Russian leadership.

You can keep suggesting that the rest of the world should just roll over for a bully if you want, but you at least need to admit that he's a bully, you can't even seem to find it within yourself to do that.

O.

They wouldn't be able to fight without western weapons, so all the west has done is increase the number of Ukrainians who will die. Apparently then the west is using Ukrainians to weaken Russia. Weaken, as opposed to defeat, because the problem remains that Ukraine will run out of manpower faster than Russia. So when that time comes, the west will have to replace the defeated Ukrainian forces and carry on the attrition until Russia is defeated. Given Cameron's latest antics at NATO, that seems to be the likely outcome - unless the west doesn't want to commit manpower in the latter stages. And unless China or other countries ally with Russia.

[Outrider]

They wouldn't be able to fight without western weapons, so all the west has done is increase the number of Ukrainians who will die.

They wouldn't be able to fight as well, but they'd be able to fight. They have a standing army, they have people. What the west's support has done is made sure that more of the deaths are on the side of the aggressor than would otherwise be the case. It's given the Ukrainians a chance of making their fight potentially lead to a victory.

Apparently then the west is using Ukrainians to weaken Russia.

The West doesn't need to weaken Russia, the West could piss on Russia strongly enough to destroy it. The West is not 'using' the Ukranians for anything more than a slightly more cost-effective way of reducing the cost of destroying out of date ammunition.

Weaken, as opposed to defeat, because the problem remains that Ukraine will run out of manpower faster than Russia.

If that were the sole issue that would be a problem, but Russia has to contend with the prospect of running out of political will, citizen patience and cash.

So when that time comes, the west will have to replace the defeated Ukrainian forces and carry on the attrition until Russia is defeated.

It won't have to. It may or may not choose to step in if it seems as though Ukraine is in imminent danger, but it's not obliged to.

Given Cameron's latest antics at NATO, that seems to be the likely outcome - unless the west doesn't want to commit manpower in the latter stages.

That's your take on it based on the 'antics of David Cameron'. I suppose he is a more reliable source than Vladimir Putin... technically.

And unless China or other countries ally with Russia.

China benefits from Russia being ground down, they want more destitute vassal states - that's the potential downside for Western democracies (and, more to the point, their economies).

Still no mention of Putin's duty not to instigate warfare and kill people for his personal and national vanity, then?

O.

[Spud]

They wouldn't be able to fight as well, but they'd be able to fight. They have a standing army, they have people. What the west's support has done is made sure that more of the deaths are on the side of the aggressor than would otherwise be the case. It's given the Ukrainians a chance of making their fight potentially lead to a victory.

The West doesn't need to weaken Russia, the West could piss on Russia strongly enough to destroy it. The West is not 'using' the Ukranians for anything more than a slightly more cost-effective way of reducing the cost of destroying out of date ammunition.

If that were the sole issue that would be a problem, but Russia has to contend with the prospect of running out of political will, citizen patience and cash.

It won't have to. It may or may not choose to step in if it seems as though Ukraine is in imminent danger, but it's not obliged to.

That's your take on it based on the 'antics of David Cameron'. I suppose he is a more reliable source than Vladimir Putin... technically.

China benefits from Russia being ground down, they want more destitute vassal states - that's the potential downside for Western democracies (and, more to the point, their economies).

Still no mention of Putin's duty not to instigate warfare and kill people for his personal and national vanity, then?

O.

I hear that recently the commander of the 14th mechanised brigade on the northern front line got orders to attack the Russians, but without artillery support. He refused, and a woman who was the psychologist for the brigade tried to motivate them to do it, calling them cowards etc. The commander shot her.
So this suggests the actual soldiers on the ground are not willing to fight without weapons. So western weapons supply is escalating the war.
Yes I see the enthusiasm for using up old ammo, is that ethical if it leads to increased deaths on the defending side? Seems like escalation to me.
I think both sides will fight on until one army collapses, and that will be Ukraine's.
Putin is popular and their economy is good, despite sanctions. China has committed to supporting Russia, iirc.
So while I can understand your reasoning, I think strategically it is flawed.
As for Putin being a bully. He comes across as a gentleman in interviews on "Ukraine on Fire". Comparing him with the thugs who led the Maidan revolt, I think there is a side to the story you are ignoring, and this is continually manifest in the current shelling of civilians in Donetsk, and the lies used by Ukrainian politicians to win sympathy.
Yes I know the Russian army has some foul characters in it but there are also a lot of gentlemen. I will stop there as don't want to get into a massive argument with you.

[Outrider]

I hear that recently the commander of the 14th mechanised brigade on the northern front line got orders to attack the Russians, but without artillery support. He refused, and a woman who was the psychologist for the brigade tried to motivate them to do it, calling them cowards etc. The commander shot her.

Did you hear that, did  you? More to the point, did you believe that?

So this suggests the actual soldiers on the ground are not willing to fight without weapons.

It suggests that there's someone here willing to listen to Russian propoganda. I don't doubt that there are Ukrainians unwilling to fight without sufficient weaponry, there's ample evidence of Ukrainians unwilling to fight even if there is sufficient weaponry, but I've not seen anything credible to suggest that Ukrainian leadership has resorted to shooting malcontents.

So western weapons supply is escalating the war.

Western weaponry is allowing the Ukrainian people to fulfil their choice of response, namely fighting for their freedom from corrupt Russian oppression.
 

Yes I see the enthusiasm for using up old ammo, is that ethical if it leads to increased deaths on the defending side?

I don't think you understand how ammunition works. Notwithstanding your 'totally happened' story above, the Ukrainians use the ammunition on their invaders. It leads to increased deaths on the attackers side.

Seems like escalation to me.

Giving people the means to defend themselves is not escalation, Russia should have expected resistance. NATO forces invading Russia would be an escalation, that hasn't happened.

I think both sides will fight on until one army collapses, and that will be Ukraine's.

That's a distinctly unfortunate possibility at this point.
 

Putin is popular and their economy is good, despite sanctions.

Putin has a propoganda wing that is selling the story that he's popular - he has a strong following, but there is also a strong (if understandably understated) opposition. Their economy is in the shitter, it wasn't strong before.

China has committed to supporting Russia, iirc.

You trust all the reliable sources. China hasn't committed to very much at all, China has issued a lot pleasantries that fail to criticise Russia, it's said some encouraging things, it's bought Russian exports at bargain-basement prices, but it's committed very, very little.

So while I can understand your reasoning, I think strategically it is flawed.

I think, strategically, it's not fantastic for Ukraine, but the only way to make things any better for them is to actually escalate the situation, which pretty much everyone agrees would be a bad thing.
 

As for Putin being a bully. He comes across as a gentleman in interviews on "Ukraine on Fire".

I'm sure that's very convincing for the people of the country that he's indiscriminately bombing to prop up his failing regime.

Comparing him with the thugs who led the Maidan revolt

You mean the protesters who were shot at by the pro-Russian politician who defied the will of is own people? Just so we're clear we're talking about the same thing.

I think there is a side to the story you are ignoring, and this is continually manifest in the current shelling of civilians in Donetsk, and the lies used by Ukrainian politicians to win sympathy.

So the Ukranians who have Russians in their country are lying, but the Russians who have crossed a clearly defined border are being totally honest? The independent media outlets of countries around the world are retelling Ukranian lies, whilst the state-sponsored outlets of the Russian police-state are telling the unvarnished truth. Are you really that credulous? Do you really expect anyone else to be?

Yes I know the Russian army has some foul characters in it but there are also a lot of gentlemen. I will stop there as don't want to get into a massive argument with you.

It's a bit late for that. You've continually supported a regime that has repeatedly invaded neighbouring countries on patently absurd pretexts, you parrot the lies of that regime and you still, now, can't find it in yourself, even if your motivation is just to stop the bloodshed, to actually admit that the underlying cause of all this is Russian aggression.

You're a shill for an imperialist bully - I have every interest in arguing with you on this, because what you're doing is morally indefensible.

O.

[jeremyp]

They wouldn't be able to fight without western weapons, so all the west has done is increase the number of Ukrainians who will die. Apparently then the west is using Ukrainians to weaken Russia. Weaken, as opposed to defeat, because the problem remains that Ukraine will run out of manpower faster than Russia. So when that time comes, the west will have to replace the defeated Ukrainian forces and carry on the attrition until Russia is defeated. Given Cameron's latest antics at NATO, that seems to be the likely outcome - unless the west doesn't want to commit manpower in the latter stages. And unless China or other countries ally with Russia.

The killing of Ukrainians would stop completely if Russia withdrew.

[Spud]

Did you hear that, did  you? More to the point, did you believe that?

It suggests that there's someone here willing to listen to Russian propoganda. I don't doubt that there are Ukrainians unwilling to fight without sufficient weaponry, there's ample evidence of Ukrainians unwilling to fight even if there is sufficient weaponry, but I've not seen anything credible to suggest that Ukrainian leadership has resorted to shooting malcontents.

Western weaponry is allowing the Ukrainian people to fulfil their choice of response, namely fighting for their freedom from corrupt Russian oppression.
 
I don't think you understand how ammunition works. Notwithstanding your 'totally happened' story above, the Ukrainians use the ammunition on their invaders. It leads to increased deaths on the attackers side.

Giving people the means to defend themselves is not escalation, Russia should have expected resistance. NATO forces invading Russia would be an escalation, that hasn't happened.

That's a distinctly unfortunate possibility at this point.
 
Putin has a propoganda wing that is selling the story that he's popular - he has a strong following, but there is also a strong (if understandably understated) opposition. Their economy is in the shitter, it wasn't strong before.

You trust all the reliable sources. China hasn't committed to very much at all, China has issued a lot pleasantries that fail to criticise Russia, it's said some encouraging things, it's bought Russian exports at bargain-basement prices, but it's committed very, very little.

I think, strategically, it's not fantastic for Ukraine, but the only way to make things any better for them is to actually escalate the situation, which pretty much everyone agrees would be a bad thing.
 
I'm sure that's very convincing for the people of the country that he's indiscriminately bombing to prop up his failing regime.

You mean the protesters who were shot at by the pro-Russian politician who defied the will of is own people? Just so we're clear we're talking about the same thing.

So the Ukranians who have Russians in their country are lying, but the Russians who have crossed a clearly defined border are being totally honest? The independent media outlets of countries around the world are retelling Ukranian lies, whilst the state-sponsored outlets of the Russian police-state are telling the unvarnished truth. Are you really that credulous? Do you really expect anyone else to be?

It's a bit late for that. You've continually supported a regime that has repeatedly invaded neighbouring countries on patently absurd pretexts, you parrot the lies of that regime and you still, now, can't find it in yourself, even if your motivation is just to stop the bloodshed, to actually admit that the underlying cause of all this is Russian aggression.

You're a shill for an imperialist bully - I have every interest in arguing with you on this, because what you're doing is morally indefensible.

O.

Even if Putin is the bad guy he will die eventually. And your strategy relies on the death of a large proportion of the Ukrainian population, women and teenagers included at which point Russia will still take the four oblasts it annexed. Mine says that Putin is not Hitler, he is not coming for Europe and we should step back and provide non-lethal aid only.

[Spud]

https://t.me/mriya24/36311

[ad_orientem]

The only thing preventing Ukrainian victory so far, is a lack of will to give Ukraine everything it needs to win, and placing limits on what Ukraine can do with those weapons for fear of escalation (the West still has learnt nothing). War should be brought to Russia. Target Russian officials and oligarchs, including those abroad, the war would soon stop. Alternatively you could just give every Russian a gun and a bottle of vodka and let their propensity to self-destruct do the rest.

[Outrider]

Even if Putin is the bad guy he will die eventually.

Even if? Pathetic.

And your strategy relies on the death of a large proportion of the Ukrainian population, women and teenagers included at which point Russia will still take the four oblasts it annexed.

It's not my strategy. Putin invaded, that's his strategy. Ukraine resisted, that's their strategy. Given that was the start point, our strategy was based upon those precepts - we opted to give the oppressed a better chance of resisting - there were going to be huge numbers of deaths, but now there are fewer atrocities committed by Russian invaders as they occupy less territory, there are fewer people condemned to ongoing Russian corruption, and there is less encouragement for other aggressive, expansionist regimes to think 'that works'.

Mine says that Putin is not Hitler, he is not coming for Europe and we should step back and provide non-lethal aid only.

First they came for the Ukraine, but I was not Ukrainian so I stood by... You're an apologist for an atrocity.

O.

[ad_orientem]

General Mark Milley is based AF!

https://x.com/Jamie04381095/status/1732221590379680028?s=20

[Nearly Sane]

General Mark Milley is based AF!

https://x.com/Jamie04381095/status/1732221590379680028?s=20

Before I commit fully to a take on this, did he qualify Russian in any way? Adult? Soldier? Soldier involved in Ukariane invasion?

[SqueakyVoice]

Before I commit fully to a take on this, did he qualufy Russian in any way? Adult? Soldier? Soldier involved in Ukariane invasion?

NS,
Probably not...?

On a frigid U.S. air base in Germany, the top U.S. military officer was in his element. Striding along the training area in his fatigues, Army Gen. Mark Milley bellowed at the Ukrainian troops gathered around him.
“Slava Ukraini!” he hollered, again and again, the “glory to Ukraine” battle cry.

https://apnews.com/article/mark-milley-chairman-joint-chiefs-legacy-31aa4818229448a5b5aa687fa10819dd